“The US is on the brink of losing its status as the world’s largest economy, and is likely to slip behind China this year, sooner than widely anticipated, according to the world’s leading statistical agencies,” reports the Financial Times. “The US has been the global leader since overtaking the UK in 1872. Most economists previously thought China would pull ahead in 2019.” I suppose “most economists” didn’t fully account for the destructive nature of Barack Obama’s economic policies. Obama isn’t solely to blame, though. There are long-time policies in the U.S. that have sent manufacturing jobs to China and have aided in China’s incredible growth over recent decades. The key to keeping the U.S. in first place is to free the market.

Pain or damage don't end the world. Or despair or f-ing beatings. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man... and give some back.- Al Swearengen

With 4.5 times as many people, having the some total economic out put means the country is still piss poor in a major way. The average American is 4.5 times more productive than the average Chinese. This is a silly inevitable milestone.

Did it get here sooner because Obamacare, porkulus, and all the insanely expensive regulations added by the Obama administration? Of course. Obama and the Congressional Democrats have probably shaved at least 2% per year off of the economic growth since he took office in the U.S. Senate 7 years ago which makes our economic output about 15% less per year than it should be at this point. Integrated over those seven years, That's a loss of economic output of around $30,000 for every man, woman, and child living legally and illegally in the U.S. over that time. Have the Democrats made people's lives that much better over that time period?

This is exactly why Democrats best intentions lead to poverty. Economic growth matters dramatically. Democrats always dramatically under value its importance relative to their micromanaging goals. It is the failure of all top down governments because top down governments are inevitably horribly economically inefficient. China grows faster because they have made a small step toward a less top down economy. If they ever move totally away from that, their people will move from being 1/4.5 as prosperous as us to near 1/1 in a half century. However, that would be a great thing. Prosperous people don't risk that to screw with their neighbors military. They are not parasitic and need to expand. They are fat, dumb, and happy. As opposed to hungry, dumb, and pissed off.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

No. This has nothing to do with Obama care or the size of our economy. Rather this statistic is about the relative purchasing power of the population. Our economy still dwarfs all others.

This is what happens when there is only quantitative analysis without qualitative ... or any explanation .. and is symptomatic of conservatives' rush to judgement at the slightest hint of an opportunity to bash this administration.

What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?Republicans take care of big money, for big money takes care of them ~ Will Rogers

The estimates of the real cost of living, known as purchasing power parity or PPPs, are recognised as the best way to compare the size of economies rather than using volatile exchange rates, which rarely reflect the true cost of goods and services: on this measure the IMF put US GDP in 2012 at $16.2tn, and China’s at $8.2tn.

In 2005, the ICP thought China’s economy was less than half the size of the US, accounting for only 43 per cent of America’s total. Because of the new methodology – and the fact that China’s economy has grown much more quickly – the research placed China’s GDP at 87 per cent of the US in 2011.

dudejcb wrote:and is symptomatic of conservatives' rush to judgement at the slightest hint of an opportunity to bash this administration.

Is this the rush to judgement that your refer to?

SpinnerMan wrote:This is a silly inevitable milestone.

Or did you just do what you claim others do?

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

Your link says the same as mine at first glance, so who and what was meant by really?

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.

don novicki wrote:You can thank NAFTA and Bill Clinton for starting this downward spiral................."THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND" as H Ross once said, but no one wanted to listen to him.........

NAFTA came into effect in 1994. Things were pretty good for quite awhile after that. Sorry, NAFTA did not hurt. What has hurt is that we had a recession, that happens, but we have not had the normal robust recovery to get back to normal. After NAFTA the economy was solid until the internet bubble burst, then we had the ENRON and other accounting scandals (after shocks to the internet bubble), then the terror attacks on 9/11/01, yet we still did OK until the housing bubble burst. If you look at past major downturns, they are followed by a big boom. There has been no boom and that is because of all the onerous regulations added since then.

Don't forget the Democrats took over Congress in 2007. As bad as Bush was, there was a big step change after the Dems had control of writing new laws.

A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.